"GROSS NEGLIGENCE"

Hawke's Bay Herald-Tribune, Issue 29, 18 February 1937, Page 7

"GROSS NEGLIGENCE"

Man Fined as Sequal To Collision on Bridge LICENCE END0RSED A dn© of £2, with costs £4 !/*, and the endorsement of his iiceiice Were ordered When Mervyn Louis LevaillaUt, dn a charge of negligetttly drivittg a motbr caf on the, Hastings-Taihape road, appeated in the Hastings Mag'istrate's Oouft yestefday. "This seems to be a case df gtoss ttegligence and failing to keep a gbod look-out," said the Magisttate in givittg his de-> cision. The proseeution atbse otit of an 604 eident on a one-ear bridge on the Has-tings-Taihape road, near Omahu. The accused was rgpresented by Mr W. S. Averill, and pleaded not guilty. Sergeant Mclntosh gave evidence of his intervieWing the defendant and obtaining a statement in which defendant attributed the accident to his not being able to see the otber car* Clifford E. Grainger, the dfivef of the other car, said he did not notice defendant's car approaching untii witness was three-quarters Of the W.ay across the bridge. Defendant shoUld have seen hdm, and-he expected defendant would stop, but he did fiOt. "I immediately applied iny brakes aiid swung into the side of tne bridge. I was practicaily at the end of ihe bridge When defendant's car Struck mine. My car WaS badly smashed," he Btated. • "Immediately after the accident the defendant said he had not seen me. He later admitted he was to blame." WRness considered that defendant appfdached at too iast. a speed. To Mr Averill: He did not admit that the visibility was bad. He did not consider tbe bridge was dangerous, He admitted that a driver at tbe Hastings end of the bridge would not see a car approaching frbm the other side until it was on the bridge. Two other witnesses gave eorrobotative, evidence. Mr Averill said that the defence was that the collision was a pure accident. Defendant approached the bridge at a moderate speed. There was a bad ap« iproach to the bridge. When tbe defendant approached the bridge he had to swittg over to the left, as the road Was bad, and thfen back again Ofl to the bridge. t Levaillant stated that he did not reniember seeing any car as he approached the bridge. As he swung on to tiie bridge, the other car efttefed the bfidge at tbe other end. "You've heard three witnesses §ay to the contrar.v," said the Magistrate. "Yes, but I still maintain that We both canie »n to the bridge together/' said the defendant. "I pulled up within a yard on the bridge. . » "You toean to say that you ptilled Up within a yardj yet they came Ott to th© bridge at the sftme timej and came right on to yOU?5' quCstldned Mr Millef. Defendant said that that was what kad occurred. "What about these three witnesSes

saying you admitted you were in the WrohgF" asked ( his Worship. Reealled, Grainger Wai ask^d by ihe Magistrate what part 6f tne defendant's cg,r he saw. "The Side and the frottt,", said witxiess. ' " Did you see the driver? — "No.^ Was is possible for ybn to havC seen defendant's car, and yet the dtivef uiigiit not have, see'n you?-^-"His car was in sUch a position that he shotild havo seefl me." "The defence is that this ii A piire accident," said the Magisttate "t don't accept that. 1 accept the evi- * dence of the driver and' the pasfeengers in the. other car. Yoq muet m ©ohvicted. _ This seems to be a case ef gross negligCnce and failing to kelp a gOod look-biit."